Staples bandies about the terms: communists, EcoFreaks, and PRC(Peoples
Republic of California), as if that adds anything to the factual basis of
the discussion. This alone sends up the warning flag that we have an
angry guy, who cares little for calm rational argument, but who enjoys
lightweight name calling. Then, he repeatedly brings in his qualifications
as a forester. You can't have it both ways--- what loses out is Staple's
scientific integrity. This is my last response to Staple's "arguments".
On Sun, 7 Sep 1997, Don Staples wrote:
> catherine yronwode wrote:
> >
> > Don Staples wrote:
> > >
> > > D. Braun wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 5 Sep 1997, Don Staples wrote:
> >
>> > Hurwitz is under indictment. His next court date on the S&L charges is
> > September 22nd, in Texas. This is a week after the Headwaters
> > demnstration scheduled for Carlotta, California on September 14th.
>> So the effort is to propagandize the trial, and hope to gain access to
> the jury through the media. Keen thinking.
??! No, this fact was posted in response to your claim that Hurwitz hasn't
done anything wrong.
> >
> > The term "corporate raider" is one that is commonly accepted and its
> > meaning is well known. Hurwitz has acquired several companies via
> > hostile take-over, leveraged by junk bonds. He is not being called that
> > to "demean" his ownership but rather to point out his form of business
> > practices.
> >
> All of which are legal. And Hurwitz may not "oen" the company, but be a
> majority stock holder in a holding company that "owns" Headwaters.
> Still a long streatch in truth, but a short step in propaganda to tie
> all this to "criminal" as you and DBraun like to bandy about.
Propaganda? Not from me. Maxxam extended roads into Marbled Murrelet and
Northern Spotted Owl habitat (for miles---it was no accident) without
doing the proper surveys, or designating set-asides required by the
Endangered Species Act. A judge intervened, and he was limited to salvage
logging dead trees; this order was violated, and a judge intervened again,
and work was stopped, at least temporarily. These events---examples of
breaking the law---occurred, although I may have a few facts muddled, as
I haven't rechecked since I read about these events in the newspaper.
Now, suppose one could argue that Hurwitz is not responsible for the
day to day operations of his company; I believe he is responsible for
patterns of law breaking conduct. There is that Hurwitz webpage that can
be checked out, as well as other sources for those so inclined.
I never stated he was a criminal, as you allege. That may yet be
his status in regards to the final outcome of the S&L
investigation. Propaganda strike three, for you. In my last post on the
thread, I did say: "If Hurwitz isn't a corporate raider, law-breaker,
rip-off artist, and generally not-nice person, than no one is." Well, I
may have went too far; if he has kids, he probably loves them. Mostly not
nice person?
>> > > Hurwitz may have caused the collapse of an S&L, again no convictions
> > > or serious federal actions against him.
> >
> > Wrong. Serious federal actions against him are currently on the docket.
> > As i mentioedn above, he will next be appearing to testify on September
> > 22nd.
>> Do you beleave in the constituion? Indictments are legal fishing trips
> to try and find something to charge with. Even if endicted, he faces
> trial only, not conviction, and only after the trial, if convicted, will
> there be penalties. So, wrong you are darlin'.
Can you read? Read what she said again.
> > > > IMHO, the feds should simply sieze Pacific
> > > > Lumber's(Maxxam's) property and add the pristine acreage to Redwoods
> > > > National Park, to pay us all back for the bailout (robbery of our
> > > > tax $) to fix the S&L he busted. Sounds fair to me. [...]
> >
> > > Ah, good communist thought there, sieze the sucker, for the better
> > > good of the people, to hell with private ownership. To hell with due
> > > process in that the man, or the company, has not been convicted, just
> > > charged.
> >
> > Actually, this proposal -- a swap of the land for the 2.5 billion
> > dollars he is charged with obtaining by fraud from the U. S.
> > government-- has been talked about openly for years. It is not a
> > "communist" idea nor is it intended as a violation fo "private
> > ownership." There have been feelers made on behalf of the government and
> > Hurwitz about the possibility of negotiating this swap as a partial
> > payment for his fine, if he is found guilty. I believe that if Hurwitz
> > feels he will do serious jail time, he may well negotiate such a deal.
>> Talk about by the new "communists" the ecofreaks that want this private
At about this point, I lost interest in talking to Staples.
I am reposting my last, lengthy reply, which has gone unanswered by
Staples for several days. I do have some additional comments below.
> property for their own use. One thing is absolutely certain in nature.
> You cannot preserve what stands today, it is all in a state of
> evolution. To put the Headwaters, or any other tract, under a bell jar
> and attempt to preserve it as it is, violates natural law. To attemp to
> take the land from private hands into public hands through diveious
> means violates the rights of private property under the constitution. I
> charge you with contempt of the constitution, and violation of natural
> law. There now, I feel better, I just placed you in the same category
> as Hurwitz. A criminal. Indicted, untried and unsentenced. But we are
> talking about your criminal acts, so they must be fact.
>> Hurwitz may not be able to turn over anything but his stock in the
> Headwaters parent corporation. As a corporation, I serious doubt he
> owns the company, or even the majority of the stock. He arranged a
> leverage buy out that usually means numerous sources of funds, all
> looking to make a mint in the stock, liquidation, piece meal sasle of
> the cut up company, what ever.
>> What, or who, are the others in this conspiracy. Could it be you and
> the Ecofreaks have targetted the "weak link"? Nay,you have done your
> research and are dead set the devil sits as CEO on the Headwaters.
>> >
> > > No, I as a forester, and unlike you, don't comment on somethings
> > > conditions without actually evaluating the site. I cannot tell you if
> > > there are residual groves of the big timber scattered among second
> > > growth or if there is 3000 acres of the big trees. It remains not my
> > > position to try and tell any one on how to manage there property,
> > > private property particularly.
> >
> > As far as i know, there is no dispute from any side -- including
> > Hurwitz's -- that the groves are indeed virgin timber. Casting doubt on
> > this because you have not seen it personally is quixotic at best and
> > diversionary at worst. PL acknowledges Headwaters Forest to be virgin
> > timber. 'Nuff said.
>> I cast no doubt. I refuse to comment on unseen land, timber,
> environment, what ever. It is called professional integrity. Now, you
> hire me, and I will comment on what I find on Headwaters after I inspect
> it. One of the flaws about being a professional forester, you have to
> see, to know, and have to know to comment. I talk about ownership only,
I guess you don't read any of the scientific literature on forest
management or forest ecology. Is this because it would be a waste of time
for you, because you haven't personally seen all those scientists' study
sites?
> private. The call of "virgin" timber is a debate I would not get into,
Why not? The Society of American Foresters issued their interim definition
more than 10 years ago. The Wilderness Society used it to show that the
USFS was exagerating the acreage of old-growth in the PNW by about 100%
The argument that old-growth can't be defined (as well as, curiously, we
will never run out) are arguments with lots of holes, put forward by those
interests that wish to log the last of the publically owned old-growth in
the U.S. I would think that you indeed have a position on the old growth
issue, as shown by your comments.
> particularly on the big trees of the west. But I would pose a
> quesstion. If a grass land tract that has never been under the shade of
> trees were planted, would not then the seedlings be virgin timber?
> "Virgin timber" is similar to virginity among the population, often
> talked about, but poorly defined past the age of 21.
They would be miserable little trees, which would die off soon enough, as
grasslands don't have enough precipitation to support forests--- that's
why they are grasslands. Old-Growth in the PNW has a structural definition
(SAF); it occurs on a subset of what primary forest (never logged) there
is here. Primary forest would include never-logged forest that has
burned or blown down recently, as well as forest that has gone through
succession subject to more small scale disturbances, such as individual or
small group tree fall, suppression, or root-rot mortality. Primary forest
does not include clear-cuts; on the other hand, old-growth could
theoretically re-grown on clear cuts, or develop in primary forest after
sufficient time from a stand replacing natural disturbance. Clear? This is
not just opinion on the matter, which would be clear to someone reading
the relevant scientific literature. That the popular media or other
entities may refer to any area with big old trees and a natural look as
old-growth, or any area with young trees as second-growth does not change
what I have said.
>> > > > > If you want to set the Headwaters aside
> > > > > fro a wilderness preserve, please feel free to purchase this
> > > > > private tract, and do with it as you will. That way, it wont cost
> > > > > the public anything.
> >
> > This is certainly an option that is being seriously discussed among
> > environmentalists. The problem is, if Hurwitz clearcuts it all, there
> > will be nothing left to buy. He has not offered it for sale, but again,
> > events in his federal trial may prompt some motion on his part. The real
> > danger is that the entire forest will come down before any negotiations
> > can be done.
>> Ah, the crux of the problem. IT IS private land, and he CAN cut it, and
> you don't WANT him to do so. Couple of the commandments broken in all
> of that, you figure which one's. Coveting, avarice: Those two should
> get you started.
No, you have been told before that this is not true. (Cutting with no
oversight).
> > Once again, for those interested in the history of Charles Hurwitz,
> > there is a page that details his corporate history -- and offers a
> > reward for information leading to his conviction. The URL is
> > http://www.jailhurwitz.com>> Ah, a return to the vigilantism of the old west! Circle the wagons,
> Hurwitz, the savages are surrounding you!
?! Dissemination of factual information for the purpose of an equitable
settlement to the Maxxam/Headwaters saga is vigilantism? Sounds like
democracy, and application of the rule of law to me.
Dave Braun
I won't be back.
>> > catherine yronwode
> > Lucky Mojo Curio Co: http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html>> --
> Ego Stroke: http://www.livingston.net/dstaples/>>